2004 Election debate

[lenharper]

Duceppe was the only one who answered the questions that were posed to him. The rest of them simply took the opportunity to recite their party platform. As opposed to some of the great Canadian debates of the past where the leaders actually engaged with each other, this debate resembled an American style exercise in who could get out the most talking points and "stick to message".

I thought it was kind of sad. Watching each leader try and drown the other out was pathetic -- and none was worse than Jack Layton.

 

[ceo8888ca]

My 2 cents

I watched the debate, not so much as trying to determine the winner, but to see for myself if I can pick up the definitive characteristics of each of them.

Here's my observations :

Duceppe has a clear mind and agenda and is fairly honest overall. Too bad he is for Quebec only.

Layton is a focused "Parrot" for the party line and had every intention to grab the spotlight. Full of promises without regard for anyone, he is making promises that he cannot keep - eventually either it is too costly or will be rejected by others in his party (e.g. apologise to the Chinese and pay them for the Head-Tax deal - not mentioned in the debate though)

Martin refused to answer "direct position" questions from others so he cannot be quoted later. His position is to eventually claim that he had no choice etc. The fact that he lost his cool and mocked Layton about "Handlers telling him to keep talking" points out to me that he is indeed an insensitive and bullish dictator! He can be worst than the old PM. At least with Jean, we know when and where it is coming. Martin will be the plotter, and sack people continuously within his party unless he gets his way. He will do the same to this country - appears to be democratic but be slick and full of broken promises.

Harper - His positions were clear on most issues. I can see his willingness to reform the Federal government by releasing power to the provinces. Yes, he is right winged but he tells you so in the first place. As for his integrity and ability to control his party - I cannot judge yet. I don't think he is a bad choice externally. No PM can be worst than Jean on the international scene anyways..

 

[happygrump]

Bear in mind that, for better or worse, Martin is the only one that has a leadership record. Everyone else is completely untried on the national scene, so what the other candidates say are just words. Martin, on the other hand (regardless of whether you support him or not), can point to his public record of seven consecutive balanced budgets, budget surpluses, standing up to the US vis a vis Iraq and missile defence (though that's still a bit up in the air, apparently)... Undoubtedly, there have been some massive problems on his watch, and he must be accountable for them.

Mr Harper clearly took over the old Tories. It was never a merger, it was a steamrolling.

Mr Layton, though I believe his heart is in the right place, simply has no chance of forming the next government, and his fiscal policies are, at best, ill-advised.

Duceppe should be charged with sedition. Howcum we don't hang people for treason anymore? (Oh... right... we're not barbarians...)

 

[Goober Mcfly]

The whole "right to choose" bogey-man is pathetic. There are Liberals who are pro-life, and there are Conservatives who are pro-choice.

A free vote is the way democracy works, is it not? But no worries, there will be no bills introduced on the abortion issue. Even if the Conservatives win a majority, it will be a slim one, and Harper won't risk a non-confidence vote on an issue that most people don't really think is important (although I disagree).

 

[johnhenrygalt]

Mr. Harper will not hold a free vote on abortion - he never said he would. OTOH, if a MP introduces a private member's bill, the vote will be allowed - all private member's bills are free votes. This is not the same thing as the government holding a free vote. A government free vote is still on a government bill - it's just that it is not a matter of confidence. Mr. Harper expressly stated that neither he nor his government will introduce legislation on abortion.

Free votes happen regularly - it's just that in most Parliaments, the government occupies all the time on the agenda, leaving no time for the free vote. Private member's bills usually do not see the light of day unless there is substantial support in the House to begin with. One of the planks of Manning's Reform platform was a call for more free votes. I want to see Harper's committment to free votes. Under Chrétien, virtually everything was made a matter of confidence leaving government MPs no discretion. Prior to taking office, Martin pledged more free votes - but now with the campaign in full swing, he's flipflopped as usual. Now his tune is "no free votes on my watch unless I agree with it." Martin may have been an excellent CEO of Canada Steamship Lines when he held 100% of the votes. But he seems to have trouble adjusting to the concept that in Parliament he only has 1 out of 308 votes, and not everyone agrees with everything he says.

Back in Mulroney's first term when he held a free vote on capital punishment (i.e. it was a government bill, but not a matter of confidence), the Liberals and NDP voted en bloc to defeat it. Now at the time the Liberals and NDP only had 70 seats between them, but the 208 Tories were divided on the issue. Also when the Supreme Court invalidated the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code, Kim Campbell, as Minister of Justice, introduced an amendment - as a government bill but not as a matter of confidence. A free vote was held and the bill was defeated.

 

[sweet guy]

The whole "right to choose" bogey-man is pathetic. There are Liberals who are pro-life, and there are Conservatives who are pro-choice.

Oops Goober, you just mixed up.

Liberals-pro-choice-free to choose to have an abortion.
Conservatives-pro-life-deny any choice to have an abortion.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Oops Goober, you just mixed up.

Liberals-pro-choice-free to choose to have an abortion.
Conservatives-pro-life-deny any choice to have an abortion.

No, my point was there are pro-choice Conservative candidates and pro-life Liberal candidates. Even the parties are split on this issue.

 

[sweet guy]

Again why would women vote vote for this idiot.

Because those women are prudish idiots.

Those women are willing to be "babies making" machines and don't be surprised when they volunteer to have female circumcisition when they are told by their parish that such operation will "cleanse" their "deviant" sexual desire.

BTW, how many of those Tory candidates are women?

How many of those prominent Tory/Alliance/Reform members are female?

I can think of two. Debbie Gray (No way, he is a man inpersonating as a woman like Janet Reno) and Diane Abaloni or something.

 

[sweet guy]

No, my point was there are pro-choice Conservative candidates and pro-life Liberal candidates. Even the parties are split on this issue.

Maybe it's the case when the progressive conservatives party was in place. I'm not so sure that's the case after the hostile takeover from the Alliance/reforms.

Exactly how split on this issue within the Conservatives? Isn't that true the majority of the Tories are bunches of red necks on social issues. Who can tell more than Myron Thompson himself, Stockwell Day's chum and patron?

And how about Preston Manning, Debbie Gray. Where are they?

How about Diane Abaloni whatever her last name is, complaining lack of female representation within the party?

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Isn't that true the majority of the Tories are bunches of red necks on social issues.

Sure. And all cabbies are terrorists.

If you want to discuss things intelligently, you can leave your stereotypes at home.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

I'm not so sure that's the case after the hostile takeover from the Alliance/reforms.

There was no hostile take over. You must not have been paying attention. The Progressive Conservative membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of the merger.

Isn't that true the majority of the Tories are bunches of red necks on social issues.

No, it is not true.

And how about Preston Manning, Debbie Gray. Where are they?

Preston Manning has retired from party politics to pursue other interests. You can see what he's been up to at www.prestonmanning.ca. I believe Ms. Gray has retired as well. She's been an MP for some 16 years. Contrary to popular perception, being an MP is a tough job, especially from the West where the continual travelling to and from Ottawa takes a toll.

How about Diane Abaloni whatever her last name is, complaining lack of female representation within the party?

Unlike the Liberals and NDP, the Conservatives did not "parachute" any candidates. All candidates were elected by the local riding associations and the leader signed the nomination papers without question. Paul Martin got some of his female candidates by running roughshod over the local riding associations and appointing them in place of Chrétienites. Key members of many of these riding associations have gone over to the Tories.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

The Free vote is just a phoney way to table aboration legislation and gives Harper the ability to deny what he really believes, wasn't he on record with Day as being opposed to the current abortion legislation.

There is no current abortion legislation. The Supreme Court invalidated section 287 of the Criminal Code as being contrary to section 7 of the Charter. Section 287 is still on the books as it has never been repealed. As Justice Minister, Kim Campbell attempted to remedy the juridical void by introducing legislation (on a free vote basis). It was hoped that such legislation would pass constitutional muster, but it never got that far as the House defeated the bill. Under Chrétien's watch nothing happened. He didn't repeal section 287 to bring the Criminal Code in line with the Charter nor did he attempt to replace it with constitutional legislation. Either way it was rather irresponsible.

If you want real reform of the Canadian Government you need to seperate the legislative from the executive

This would require a constutional amendment but I believe it could be done by Parliament alone under section 44 of the Constitution Act. So far the only parties proposing Parliamentary reform are the NDP (proportional representation) and the Conservatives (elected Senate and free votes). Only the Liberals propose a House of Commons with no reform.

- so-called Free votes will be nothing more than some Back Bencher getting the nod from the PMO to proceed.

Historically this has not been the case. Most free votes, even those which have the blessing of the PM do not pass.

 

[h_upmann]

I think Harper's making a mistake with his attitude over the last couple of days. Talk of a ReformAlliance majority and "no safe Liberal seat" might just spook enough NDP and ReformAlliance voters back to the Libs. Probably just wishful thinking given Martin's debate performance, but hey, who knows?

 

[johnhenrygalt]

I think Harper's making a mistake with his attitude over the last couple of days. Talk of a ReformAlliance majority and "no safe Liberal seat" might just spook enough NDP and ReformAlliance voters back to the Libs. Probably just wishful thinking given Martin's debate performance, but hey, who knows?

On the contrary it will energise the grassroots. The campaign on the ground here in Quebec has taken momentum. Some Liberal organisers and volunteers have joined the Tories and we have more volunteers than ever for the door-to-door push and to work the phones. There are half a dozen Quebec seats which are winnable with a little luck and alot of hard work.

 

[Pallydin]

There was no hostile take over. You must not have been paying attention. The Progressive Conservative membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of the merger.

And yet there are ridings across Canada where large numbers of former PCs are actively campaigning for Liberal candidates because the Liberal is just better for the riding they represent than the Conservative candidate (and yes there are cases of shady dealings with riding associations for nominations in the Conservative Party as well). This is the problem with the system we have: unhappiness with politicians from other ridings leads people to discard legitimately good MPs who truly serve the people.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have internal problems they are wrestling with, except that the Conservatives forced candidates to sign a contract that legally binds them to follow the party line and not publicly criticize if they feel different (yeah, that's the kind of freedom the Conservatives embody so just remember that when you vote). People who think a Harper govt. won't be yet another dictatorship are deluding themselves.....it is simply how the parliamentary system needs to work. Without party control, we'd waste too much time negotiating amongst individuals over every small issue that comes before parliament, which then leads to even less getting done.

PAL

 

[h_upmann]

There are half a dozen Quebec seats which are winnable with a little luck and alot of hard work.

Half a dozen is six, right? I'll take the "under" for the limit, please.

Any votes Harper finds in Quebec will come from the BQ and, if they have any effect, will benefit the Libs.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

And yet there are ridings across Canada where large numbers of former PCs are actively campaigning for Liberal candidates because the Liberal is just better for the riding they represent than the Conservative candidate

Either due to the candidate or the party. The Conservative Party is neither the PC nor the Alliance. The merger was an attempt to "enlarge the tent" in order to form a credible alternative to Liberal rule. We of course lost some on the edges. Joe Clark, Scott Brison and André Harvey did not support the merger. The loss of Harvey was painful as it was our only seat in Quebec. Clark and Brison were losses too but no one expected them to stay. Brison and MacKay have been at war for years.

Quebec federal politics is very fluid despite what the polls show. We have former sovereignists in each of the three federalist parties. A large number of federalists intend to vote BQ. Former PC Harvey André is running for the Liberals. The supporters of former Liberal MP and now Senator Raymond Lavigne are campaigning for the Conservatives. Current Conservative supporters come both from the Liberal camp and the BQ camp.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have internal problems they are wrestling with, except that the Conservatives forced candidates to sign a contract that legally binds them to follow the party line and not publicly criticize if they feel different (yeah, that's the kind of freedom the Conservatives embody so just remember that when you vote).

It's not a legally binding contract - no court would enforce such an agreement, but nevertheless it is not one of our finer moments.

People who think a Harper govt. won't be yet another dictatorship are deluding themselves.....

If this happens we'll boot him out too - I'm not a candidate so I can criticise.

it is simply how the parliamentary system needs to work. Without party control, we'd waste too much time negotiating amongst individuals over every small issue that comes before parliament, which then leads to even less getting done.

The last observation is acute. However, IMHO I often believe we'd be better off if Parliament did a little less. We have enough laws and regulations to last us a few years.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

Just wondering John - is this how Harper is going to handle Free votes. While the contract may not be legal because it violates so many sections of the Charter of Rights ( a nd gives a little hint of whats to come for the Charter) it does show that Harper will be as much of a control freak that Chretien was.

The Charter is not what renders the "contract" unenforceable since the Charter doesn't apply to contracts. It's unenforceable because the common law (and in Quebec the Civil Code) does not recognise such contracts and holds them as being against public order. Nor does the "contract" purport to be a legally binding document. A candidate must "undertake" not to run for another party nor as an independant (the Liberals do the same). If a candidate breaks his word, there is no intention to obtain an injunction to stop the candidate from doing so. Nor can the party sue for damages. It is a matter of internal party discipline and the only sanction for breach is being expelled from the party.

It's the same type of undertaking that the Alliance used in 2000 - and that sure as hell didn't stop criticism of Stockwell Day. Hell - at one point 13 members of his caucus had split to form their own Parliamentary group. And Harper is a dissenter himself when he walked out of caucus in 1997.

One other point to make, under our election law, the head of the party can approve or decline the nominitation of a candidate and only one party has come out and said it will accept who ever the Riding nominates and thats the New Democrats

On the contrary, the NDP will not automatically accept the local nomination. The NDP (like the Liberals) designates certain ridings as being for women - and will only accept the nomination of a woman - irrespective of what the local association wants.

You can bet Harper will hold this over MPs on any so called Free Vote.

Time will tell. But since Harper doesn't really give a shit about abortion I don't see why he'd try to strong arm anyone - but we'll see.

For those who questioned Martin's action in the nomination process - this practice is not uncommon in the first election after a leadership change.

The Liberal Party was in need of a good purging. Getting rid of the Chretienites did half the job, now to finish the job they just need to get rid of the Martin supporters . If they did that I might even support the Liberals.

 

[Pallydin]

If this happens we'll boot him out too - I'm not a candidate so I can criticise.

See, now here is my problem with such a statement: if you recognize the strong chance the same thing will happen with the alternative to the Liberals, what exactly is the point of switching from what we already have? You know: better "the devil you know" and all that? There is nothing the Liberals have done in the past 10 years that wouldn't have been done the same or worse if a PC/Conservative government was at the helm, and as such I don't see the point of faulting one party when all parties would've done the same. I won't even touch on the pure idiocy of people wanting to punish federal MPs for a provincial problem of the public's own making (dumb shits have cursed us all with that fool McGuinty).

So once you come to realize these facts, there is no reason not to vote for the Liberals unless you are a mindless sheep who just follows where you're herded (which of course is the problem with Western society).

PAL

 

[johnhenrygalt]

if you recognize the strong chance the same thing will happen with the alternative to the Liberals, what exactly is the point of switching from what we already have?

Well here we disagree. IMHO the current leadership of the Conservative party is the most principled group of federal politicians we've seen in a generation. I don't think there is a strong chance that Mr. Harper will turn into a dictator in 1 or 2 terms - I wouldn't want him to have a 3rd term. The Liberals have already had 3 terms and each term they got worse in terms of corruption and idiocy. A fourth terms and they'll be totally out of control.

You know: better "the devil you know" and all that? There is nothing the Liberals have done in the past 10 years that wouldn't have been done the same or worse if a PC/Conservative government was at the helm, and as such I don't see the point of faulting one party when all parties would've done the same.

Well based on that reasoning, Kim Campbell should have won a landslide in 1993. And Turner should have cleaned up in 1984. And Diefenbaker never should have been voted out in 1963 - but then he never would have been voted in since we would have stayed with St-Laurent in 1957. Hell - why don't we just abolish elections and acclaim as Head of Government whomever the Central Liberal Politburo appoints.

I won't even touch on the pure idiocy of people wanting to punish federal MPs for a provincial problem of the public's own making (dumb shits have cursed us all with that fool McGuinty).

Nor will I - But Ontarians have a history of voting one way provincially and another way federally. During the days of the Davis big blue machine, Ontario regularly sent Liberals to Ottawa. In the 1980s they put Tories in Ottawa and sent Liberals and the NDP to Queen's Park. In the 90s they lined up solidly behind Chrétien's Liberals and Harris' Tories. Now in 2003-04 it's time for another Ontario flip-flop. Liberals at Queen's Park and Tories in Ottawa. Quebec did much the same from 1976-93. When the separatist PQ was in from 1976-85, Quebec went federalist Liberal in the 1979 and 1980 elections. Then in 1984 Quebec went Tory (supported by Lucien Bouchard's nationalist gang) and in 1985 put the federalist Bourassa Liberals back into government in Quebec City. This was repeated in the 1988 federal and 1989 provincial elections.